yetseyi: Dagr8 I see you

....How far,are you done? Still waiting for you o

HumbledbYGrace: Yep

ATMC: That means a feminist is walking under that curse? right?

AllNaijaBlogger: Hello all!

ihedinobi2: @HBG and @ATMC, why do you people think "your desire shall be to thy husband (and he shall rule over thee)" mean that a woman would desire to rule over her husband? Also, why do you assume that that was a curse?

HumbledbYGrace: Glorifying the curse, a curse is something not to boast about but feminists are doing it the other way

HumbledbYGrace: #ofthesweetestcrew

Good morning

@Uj
@Dagr8
@An0nimus
@Adathefirstborn
@Tony
@Mintayo
@ all oldies and newbies in the house

ATMC: Yhu have something to say, do so...Ah no geh answers to dem kweshions above

musKeeto: Yo, anyone interested in a study on the book of Ecclesiastes? I say this with the purest of intentions.

ihedinobi2:
I just wondered.

Anyway, about the second question, I'd never really been sure it was a curse but

About the first, what the curse said is that the woman will sort of pine for her husband and her husband will lord it over her, that is, dominate her. In other words, the marriage relationship was going to turn into a relationship of odds. The woman would be disadvantaged.

ATMC: ... NLT:Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” That is the point. The desire to control a man is innate but no matter how a woman tries to control her man, it won't work. Now, I asked if that is akin to feminism and it seemed so. If then it is so, one can conclude that feminism is a walk under that curse and so to crave equality with a man who is to rule over you is to identify with the curse.

ATMC: U 're making a different point...My point is about feminism.

ihedinobi2:
I was of the understanding that you were asking if that verse points to feminism. If that is correct, my answer is that the translation you are judging by does point to it and is quite right in that regard.

However, we can tell what was really said by judging the pre-Fall relationship and the Christ-Church relationship against the post-Fall relationship. That is what I was saying essentially. I don't think it's a different point at all.

logicboy01: Always sad to see women misunderstand feminism

UjSizzle: HumbledByGrace, hi

HumbledbYGrace: was expecting this, Feminists are atheists

HumbledbYGrace: was expecting this, Feminists are atheists

HumbledbYGrace: I don't understand you sah...@ Ihe

ATMC: obidike, before the fall, Eve was a helper and Adam was in charge in other words they were cast into different roles...
After the fall, Eve sought to be in charge which(...ur desire will be to ur husby) implied feminism(my point exactly).

Bring Church into the picture...The church is a bride not in the manner of Eve (cos Eve is to help hers with the work whereas the church is to prolong the days of hers)...with Eve, there was work to be done but with the church, the work was finished and we are talking of greater works which entails prolonging his days. Now, the church comprises male and female. So collextively, we are wife but individually the case is as before the fall, when male and female were cast into differing roles. Anybody that says otherwise has the curse before her/him.

You can add...

logicboy01: I always knew the nasty princess was ignorant.

logicboy01: In other news, FrancisTony is no more a christian. A deist.

^^^^
Judging from his comments.

FrancisTony:


Emboldened, where did you see my comment that made me deist?